It's one of the most dramatic examples of evolution in action ever seen, and because Lenski freezes samples of the population every 500 generations, it is possible to go back and track how the ability developed. Lenski and his team are now doing so, and hope to have a detailed history of the ability developing, mutation by mutation.

All in all we thought it was a pretty excellent piece of research, and plenty of other sites agreed: Pharyngula, for instance, devoted a lengthy post to it. However, such an unambiguous example of evolution in action was always going to bring the kooks out of the woodwork.

First up was Michael Behe, the intelligent design proponent and biochemist, who argued in his Amazon blog that Lenski's work was in fact excellent evidence for intelligent design. His argument is a variant on the usual "it's just so improbable" line: the ability to metabolise citrate required several different mutations (true), which each have a low chance of happening in a given time (true), and it may even have been necessary for them to happen in a particular order (true), therefore Darwinian evolution can't explain it. Er, no, it just means it would take evolution a little while to manage it. 20 years, as it turned out.

Schlafly wrote a brusque open letter to Lenski, expressing "skepticism" about his claims and demanding to see the data. Lenski replied, saying that the data were publicly available in the paper, and correcting a major misunderstanding in Schlafly's letter (he misread our article as saying there were three new proteins in the mutant culture, which we didn't say and was not the case). Schlafly wrote back, in shirty tones, demanding the data in their raw form for "independent review" - meaning that Conservapedia should be allowed to reanalyse it, without it being mucked about by corrupt evolutionist scientists. And at this point Lenski must have had enough.

His response was long and detailed. He patiently explained the science (again), pointed out (again) that all the data were available, and explained that in theory he could send them samples of the bacteria so they could test them for themselves (but that in practice this was illegal as they lacked the proper facilities). But, for me, the highlight was this marvellous putdown:

It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then - as some of your acolytes have suggested - you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren't very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it's not that we claim to have glimpsed "a unicorn in the garden" - we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]

I must thank you for this article, it was interesting and informative. However, it is also highly satisfying to see the triumph of science over the idea of "intelligent" design, although the word intelligent seems barely applicable.

Excellent! Got a good laugh out of that piece. I've personally, from the research I've done, yet to see a "Young Earth Creationist" present a coherent argument, that doesn't rely on the "improbability" lynch pin, that is, assuming the argument actually makes an attempt to disprove evolution, instead of just using anecdotes from various pseudo-scientists.

Great article, but shouldn't the title be "Creationists get their comeuppance" being that it's not the critics of Creationism that get put in their place but rather the supporters of it? I'm just a laymen and maybe I got the definition of Creationism backwards. If this is the case, please forgive my "simpleness".lol Something else that always intrigued me, something that is albeit impossible to prove is why do we have to die at all, unless there is "something" coming along afterwards? I suppose the ,"to evolve through mutation" answer could be right, but it just doesn't suitably cover it for me. Why evolve? And why is it that we have never got even a glimpse of what is on "the other side"? I know that the hypothesis that it's because there is nothing on the other side is the most probable answer, but what about, if we were to know that there is something after death and dying was always painless, then we wouldn't strive to stay alive at all costs. When you put all of the questions and unknowns together and look at it as a whole, like not being immortal, making death painful and to be avoided, along with consciousness and our inability to wholly understand it all in my opinion points to the probability that SOMETHING other than black nothingness is waiting for all living beings after death. This in no way is support for the Creationists view, but rather a view that it is more likely that there is SOMETHING after death rather than nothingness. Some of the new discoveries in quantum physics that I've read about seem to point to mans idea of reality being MUCH different than it seems supporting the thought that there is just more to be discovered and expected after death. I guess the real question is, will we be consciously aware of whatever happens after death. I sure hope so.

hey rich i think i understand what your getting at and if i'm correct there is a simple recursive explanation for it. There is no 'need' per-say for death, it is simply a result of genetic and physical deterioration. Evolution is not an active thing its passive, it results from what creatures manage to procreate and which offspring live to do the same. im not sure how you are led to the conclusion of something else besides a loss of consciousness and bodily function after death. how is that shown through the fact that we avoid death? evolutionarily speaking this only proves that creatures with an attachment to life and procreation are the ones who's genetics survive. imagine a creature that doesn't fear for its well being when there is imminent danger present, this creatures genetics will not be passed on because they will eventually be killed by the disregard for their lively hood.

i'm in no way bashing what you have said but rather i am curious as to how you are rationalizing this and whether you may have accidentally left something out.

Dr. Lenski's work does not look into the "life after death" issue. You may want to instead look into Dr. Pflegger's attempts to create and patent the "Soul-O-Meter." Of course there is always the question of soul transmigration or transubstantiation that his device hold no promise to unwind. In that case try Dr. Kleimer's work -- a sort of GPS for disembodied effluvium. If the needle point up, heaven, down ... well you know, whereas sideways indicates reincarnation.

Rich, I think you're misreading it (though, to be fair, it is an ambiguous title). It isn't referring to 'creationist critics' as in 'critics of creationism', it is referring to 'creationist critics', as in 'critics who are creationists'. It is Aschlafly that is criticising Lenski, based on his creationist beliefs, and it is he who has got his comeuppance.

Oh, and if you want to have a look at some other insanities that go on at Conservapedia, check out rationalwiki.com.

1 dumb question: if it takes more than a sentence or 2 to answer, I'm sure there's a webpage that explains it, but I'm not sure how to find it, so I'd appreciate a link, and, thanks in advance:

If it takes 30 to 40 thousand generations to get this (seemingly small change, while rest is apparently quite similar to original?), how many generations is it from common ancestor of human-chimp/ape to human, and how many change would have had to happen during that time.

Um, or rather, Er... that's still e coli, just adapting to do a new trick.Where's the evolution?Do you say the new e coli can’t interbreed with the old (a in become a new species)?Have your fun, and btw, intelligent design doesn’t necessarily say life can't (or doesn’t, all the time) evolve, it simply insists that that's not how all this (this World, and the life we observe) got here.

Let me take this opportunity to address both sides, please; one side will never convince the other.All this bickering is just bringing out the worst in the other guy. That’s not right to keep on doing when it's going nowhere, provoking the other to indignant behavior.If only our behavior could evolve.How’s about everyone stops fighting and just accept that there's another point of view we are powerless to affect?No mater where you stand, the truth will come out (and it's definitely not settled), sooner or later, even if "only in the end".

I read the whole post and found it quite amusing. Read some more on the site in question but found it to be a muddle.

I do not understand how anyone could argue the results. We see it all around us. Virus' and bacteria are constantly evolving with disasterious consequences. Corn is a mutation of grass that was fairly recent. Look at what we have done to dogs. Now there is human intelligent design!! The list can go on and on....

Your dismissal of Behe as a "kook", coupled with your misrepresentation of his Amazon post (http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O)show either that you are dishonest or that reading is not your strong suit.

I would encourage your readers to check out Behe's comments for themselves, rather than rely on your errant summary. Unless they really just don't want to see the unicorn in the garden.

I’m confused. [OK, fans, so nothing new there, then.]Yes, there is indeed no reasoning with young-earth creationists. I have a good friend that’s one - [“No-one’s perfect!“, as the man said; and who am I to expect perfection in my friends?!] - and their stance is rigid faith in the literal wording of the Bible taken as the infallible Word of God. Anything that doesn’t fit that, they flatly refuse to consider. Not sure how they reconcile slight differences between translations, but I don’t think any of THOSE affect the Evolution v. Creation debate. As for how accurately they imagine any modern English translation can possibly convey thoughts and concepts originally formed in the (what would be to us completely alien) continually-developing linguistic and cultural paradigms of the Fertile Crescent of some 40 to 30 centuries ago, and eventually committed to clay tablets in (what? - ancient Aramaic?) long before making it even to Hebrew - - - well, I’ve just given up. I must confess they always put me inescapably in mind of the immortal words of (one-time governor of Texas) Ma Ferguson, arguing against the provision of bilingual education for Hispanic pupils: "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for the schoolchildren of Texas."HOWEVER . . . I thought the “Intelligent Design” lot, even the young-earth ones, were more flexible in that they do at least acknowledge what they choose to call “micro-evolution”, which is to say mutating genetic traits WITHIN a species. (As opposed to “macro-evolution”: the development by chance, rather than by the Divine Creator, of a whole new species.)I assume these organisms are NOT being claimed to be a “new species“, or on that basis the I D brigade would presumably have to refuse to acknowledge it. But, if they are accepting them as only an example of micro-evolution, then why do they need to apply the same criteria (to claim them as an example of I D) as they would normally demand for a new species (such as: developed too quickly to be random chance; or, in the case of Michael Behe’s claim, indivisible complexity requiring a certain sequence of multiple changes)?

There's no such thing as intelligent design. I'n my opinion, anyone who decides to put a man's G-spot up his rectum is no intelligent designer! Maybe evolution will work that one out for itself over the next 500000 years, either way, its not as though we will reap the benefits. Once again, Darwin has been vindicated.

In response to dmm, in what way have I misrepresented Behe's opinions? As far as I can make out, all he is discussing is the supposed unlikelihood of these mutations coming together, as in this passage from the blog (6th paragraph):

"if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. 'If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.' And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation."

I'm not sure how my summary misrepresents that, but if you could let me know, I will happily correct it.

I would, incidentally, more-or-less agree with every statement in the quoted paragraph except for the last sentence.

You are proposing a straw man argument for creationists as most creationist believe that different breeds of living creatures to come about by a process of evolution. They just believe that process is driven by an intelligent entity. In this case you basically state that Richard Lenski has bred a new breed(strain) of E.Coli or at least observed that a new species has come about. The examples of creationists you cite may be individuals who are on the extreme or merely those whom are skeptical of Mr. Lenski’s claims. The later stance is one I hope is common in the scientific community as that is part of their job.

Sorry to see that the comments were, apparently, hijacked by idiots. It is a shame that creationism is such a serious threat. Science is built on a vast body of work, all of which is verifiable, and cannot be destroyed by somebody's simpleminded idea.

As a geneticist, I want you guys to keep in mind that in order for the organism to produce this enzyme that digests citrate, it had to have the gene in some form to begin with...it is NOT possible (and yes I welcome challenge) that a whole gene would emerge in the span of 20 years. However, it stands to reason that the gene (or protein) in a mutated, non-functional form has always been there, and has once again been selected for by presence of citrate in the growth medium. Keep in mind that bacteria reproduce at such a high rate that frequent mutation is not uncommon or lethal to the population as a whole, as the mutations which lead to non-functional genes/proteins obviously die out. In the cases where an organism can survive on more than one energy source, it is possible for the genes for metabolism of one source to be mutated into a non-functional unit in the absence of that particular source...as long as there is another source of energy there will be no selective pressure to purge the population of that particular mutation/set of mutations. In essence, it isn't necessarily the case that the e.coli has "evolved" in the Darwinian sense of the word, if the gene was there to begin with in an already mutated form. In order to elucidate the whole story, we will need to know which gene in the genome is responsible for this metabolism, what the gene sequence was for the ancestor strain and for the current strain, whether the former was expressed as a protein or not, where the mutation was in the gene sequence, etc. Until then, there's really no need to sling mud in any direction (that goes for the both of you camps, quit bickering already)

Good article. I believe there is a God but don't think we will ever find him. Can an experiment understand or see the experimenter or can a painting see the painter?

I hate it when creationist fanatics try to corrupt true science thinking it will keep their 'God' alive. If their belief in a God requires that they mask, bury, or hide from the truth then He/She/It doesn't truly exist and their belief is a false belief. Only a God that exists in the truth, no matter what it is (or where it comes from), can exist.

Why does the specific gene 'have' to exist in previous generations? Who is to say that the 'mutated' gene is not the precursor and the gene you say, by argument, non-mutated the actual mutant gene? Also, couldn't another gene of similar makeup, or possibly dissimilar, mutate into a gene that has similar properties that allows the ability in question?

I can understand the principle of evolution via mutation, but surely the question that needs answering is how does life actually get started?. Is it possible to design an experiment and put all the basic ingredients together, ie atoms/organic molecules, leave them to "ferment" under different conditions, over a long period of time, and then see if, by chance life does "evolve" from that kind of primordial soup. Now THAT would be interesting, and finally nail the ID issue. Actually I can see the argument from both sides. As a scientist and mathematician I think we need to test a hypothesis " What is more probable, that life occurrs spontaneously from basic ingredients or requires a supernatural force to get it started". On the consciousness/death debate again the same principle applies. That consciousness is merely a byproduct of complex life processes and that death eventually occurrs from the mutation process or that consciousness is a supernatural gift and that death is just a gateway to another level of existence". Leave that with you!....

When you get into science vs intelligent design based on a mutant strain of E. coli you open up a new can of worms."Some times scientist appear to lack common sense. Drug resistant genes are also inserted as markers in genetically engineered bacteria. Since there has been such a dramatic increase in drug resistant bacteria in the last 25 to 30 years, there is a common (scientific and public) theory that genetic engineers are esponsible for a major portion of the increase. In fact, that theory may have some validity since a patent was assigned to Stanford University in 1980 for a process to insert genes into non-disease causing E. coli so as to create a bacteria never before seen in nature. Since that time E. coli has been the workhorse of genetic engineering." It would appear that we have become Gods and we can buy the parts to make new creatures at the lab supply house.http://www.thewatchers.us/1-genetic_food-poisoning.html

If we agree that in Lenski's e. Coli experiment where citrate metabolism is one significant evolutionary event, where there is a detectablephenotypic change (DPC), and

we consider it took 40K generations over 20 years;

and we consider that human generations are 20 years, then 40K human generations would take 800K yearsand if it's 5 to 8 mya that humans and chimps broke off from each other, let's say 8M,then 8 M / 800 K = 10

so, we might expect about 10 DPC events during that time,but the website listed here:

This defense of ID is very similar to Freiman's detailed description of ID in Current Events, Conservative Outcomes. It is only logical to look at all possibilities and ID tends to close the gaps associated with both creationism and evolution.

I love how the talk page on it at Conservapedia has just been been nuked… :S

On the subject of Conservapedia, I just posted an back-of-the-envelope “analysis” of their reach, and to be honest I don’t think it’s just Lenski that owns them - by my calculation the criticism in the science blogosphere will get a far bigger audience than their efforts. So much for Schlafly’s PR attempts…

Mr Marshall,I think DMM is correct, that you misrepresented Mr Behe's blog comments. But I appreciate your response, so without any venom or sarcasm I'll try to point out your misrepresentation.

I suppose you started by bracketing the discussion of Michael Behe in between your "Creationist Critics" headline and the much longer criticism of Mr Schlafly's arguments. By association, it appears that Behe is of similar mind as Schlafly.

Then you summarize Dr Behe's opinion of Lenski's work as "excellent evidence for intelligent design" and "Darwinian evolution can't explain it." Following that is either patronism or sarcasm as you continue: "Er, no, it just means it would take evolution a little while to manage it. 20 years, as it turned out."

One can't help but wonder if you actually read Behe's full argument before criticising it. Behe's position is that Mr Lenski's work supports pretty much the same argument as Behe makes in his recent text, "The Edge of Evolution." He does not claim that Lenski's observed mutation is beyond the reach of evolution, but that it's only one fortuitous step higher on the ladder of exponentially increasing difficulty, or possibly a degradation of previously existing function.

I am certain you can summarize Dr Behe's opinion better than me. I'm a layman, perhaps more knowledgeable than the general public about science issues, but certainly not a scientist.

I hope your reevaluation of Behe's work is more charitable to him.

(This is a repeated attempt to post. Apologies if the below text appears more than once.)

To D_Murphy, I see what you mean about bracketing Behe with Schlafly, but I'm not sure I agree.

Behe hasn't criticised Lenski's methods and approach, but he does criticise his interpretation (Lenski says the results can be explained by evolution, Behe says they can't), so he is definitely a "critic".

And he most certainly is a creationist. While his intelligent design views aren't the same as those of young Earth creationists, he still insists that an external "designer" must be responsible for much of the development of new traits, species, etc. This might be creationism on the back foot, but it's still creationism.

So I think "creationist critic" is an accurate description.

I also still don't quite understand how I've misread Behe's comments about the improbability/"beyond the reach of evolution" aspect of this.

If I understand you correctly, you're interpreting him as saying (a) that the new ability observed in Lenski's E. coli is more difficult to develop than some (because multiple mutations are involved, not just one), but (b) that it's still within the reach of conventional Darwinian evolution (those two points I would happily agree with). However his third point is (c) that abilities involving even more mutations would be so unlikely as to be effectively impossible, and therefore require some sort of external "design" to take place.

That's different to my reading, as I took his blog to mean that he thought even the developments observed by Lenski were sufficiently improbable to be "beyond the reach of evolution" - an idea I found, frankly, surreal.

The first interpretation, which I'm tentatively ascribing to you (my apologies if I've misunderstood you), is nothing like as bizarre an idea. But I think it rests on a failure to appreciate the sheer amount of time evolution has taken, and the amount of material it's had to work on.

Here's why. The new ability described by Lenski appeared within 20 years. The cell, as an entity, evolved at some point in the Precambrian period, and while we can't put precise figures on how long it took to evolve, it's safe to say that it had at least a billion years to do it. That is 50,000,000 times as long as Lenski's experiment has run for. So we might (crudely) expect it to throw up 50,000,000 equivalent new abilities. Obviously that's a very simplistic calculation, but I hope you see the basic point I'm making.

Also, bear in mind that Lenski has only a small number of E. coli populations - the global population of them is trillions of times greater. As a result, even very complex sequences of mutations would actually be surprisingly likely to happen, sooner or later.

Presumably, there is some number of mutations that is so insanely large that a couple of billion years of evolution in a very large population would be unlikely to throw it up. But that number would have to be truly, humongously, extraordinarily, astronomically, hard-to-even-write-down-without-logarithms, goes-on-forever massive.

Pretty good stuff. Thanks. I agree with Rich that it should say "Creationists get their comeuppance", but I guessed the meaning because of the venue.Rich: We die because it is the Net Creative thing to do. Mutative reproduction allows for diversity to fill the niches that open up in the environment (fittest)through offspring (usually the 'fringe', not the mean). If there wasn't death or predation or disease, then consumption would eventually rule and there wouldn't be anywhere left to live. Just as the ecoli in the petri dish eventually eat themselves out of house and home. Without death, Life would be very short lived (in geologic time).A species survives because it creates some usefulness over and above what it consumes, even if that usefulness is only its own existence. The current bubble of the Homo Petroleumus has forced a huge breach in the environmental continuum, and this cannot end well for the majority. Are your offspring 'normal' or 'freaks'? Their survival depends on where they lie.

The put-down is superb, it made my day. As for the title of your piece, "Creationist critics" may not be ambiguous on closer inspection, but it certainly leaves one ambivalent about its use. "Creationists" would have sufficed.

It does seem that there are numerous species of "kooks in the woodwork" as yet unknown to science! It's a good thing to get them all to crawl out into the sunlight, though.

Behe's post criticizing Lenski's interpretation was summarized by you as 'a variant on the usual "it's just so improbable" line.'

Here is a fairer summary:Parag.1 is praise for Lenski's work. Parag.2 claims previously discovered "beneficial" mutations were actually degradative. Parag.3 points out that E. coli CAN normally metabolize citrate, but it can't transport it across its membrane in an aerobic environment. (NewScientist and most other news organizations did not report this correctly, making it sound as though the E. coli developed citrate metabolizing 'ex nihilo'.) Parag.4 points out that citrate-using E. coli mutants have been found before, and that the mutations were degradative. Behe predicts that similar results will eventually be found in the present case. Parag.5 summarizes (and agrees with) Lenski's interpretation that the mutation required several steps before turning into a useful ability (for that environment). Parag.6 points out that Lenski's experimental setup artificially sheltered the less-fit intermediate stage(s), protecting it/them from extinction, a situation which would not occur in the wild. Parag.7 further explains Lenski's lop-sided experimental setup. Parag.8 is a quote from Lenksi's article, stating his belief that the mutations could NOT have been simple point mutations or they would not have been so difficult to induce. Parag.9 is a "haha" to critics of Behe who claimed that beneficial changes could be easily produced with a series of point mutations. Behe feels vindicated by Lenski's work, not threatened. Parag.10 finally makes the "it's just so improbable" claim and refers you to his book for convincing details and numbers. (It IS an Amazon blog, after all.)

I maintain that you did a lousy job of summarizing Behe. For you to label him as a "kook" and lump him with Schlafly makes me doubt either your reading skills or your honesty. You either fail to understand Behe's excellent points, or you do understand them but decided to smear Behe with "guilt by association" since you have no real answer to his criticisms.

However, since you have had the honesty to post my criticisms, I'm guessing you are just too busy (and/or brainwashed, and/or fearful of reprisal) to give Behe's criticisms the serious attention they deserve.

In reply to Rich, who wonders about why we "have to die," maybe we should consider the following:Physicists tell us that something on the order of 85% to 95% of all matter cannot be seen. They are frantically searching for energy particles that defy all efforts to discover them so far. Perhaps by hiding all that matter, all those long departed "dead" souls have found a way to make their presence felt?

The article did not do a very good job at describing Behe position which states...

Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there.

As far as the evolutionary response...It's like saying humans are living longer because of the progress of evolution, not because of the progress of medicine...lol

I thank Prof Lenki for the effort in sustaining this discussion and perseverence, when others may have given up earlier. Especially posting full responses and links as relevant. As a chemist and engineer myself it was easy to see that Prof Lenki interpreted the data and carried on a line of work consistent with the experiment, followed by subsequent next-generation experimentation. In summary, the data led to future experiment and interpretation, over 20 years. I have yet to see any Creationist/ID believer, proponent/acolyte, propose any such methodology, let alone test it and allow it to be evaluated by the scientific community, including the Creationist clique.When will we start to see Creationsit experimentation/methodology/interpretation and papers published? I am awaiting!

I've always been confused by the name "Creationist". Is it that they believe that God created life (as all Christians believe) or that they believe that God created all living things at once? These are two different things: how did life start to how did life adapt and change.

Responding again to Mr Marshall, who wrote: "I see what you mean about bracketing Behe with Schlafly, but I'm not sure I agree."

I'm unsure of the extent of disagreement. You don't agree that inserting comments about Dr Behe in the same context as ridicule for Mr Schlafly implies that the two men are of similar mind, when your sarcastic comments about Behe's opinion also reinforce that implication? Perhaps you do recognize that, but couldn't quite admit it, and your disagreement is only with the substance of Dr Behe's comments. You may clarify if you wish.

You volunteered a carefully parsed definition of "creationist critic," to apply it to Dr Behe. I'll technically agree and disagree. He is a "critic" of Mr Lenski's interpretation, but his criticism is fair, scientific, and professional, unlike Mr Schlafly's. (I take your word about Schlafly. I haven't checked, and don't particularly care.) As far as "creationist," well, by your definition, anyone who rejects a totally materialistic and naturalistic explanation for the origin and development of life on earth is therefore "creationist." So be it. Dr Behe's opinion and attitude is so different from Mr Schlafly's that he does not deserve to be associated with the ridicule you heaped on Mr Schlafly.

As far as the substance of the issue is concerned, I think you understood my summary of Dr Behe's position correctly, but in your objections and the evidence you offer, you appear to be thinking linearly and missing the significance of Behe's research.

For example, in your admittedly simplistic calculation, you thought we might by extrapolation find 50 million new "abilities" if we continued Dr Lenski's experiment for a billion years. Dr Behe perhaps would agree, but I think he would point out that most of those abilities would be due to "single-point" mutations that were actually degradations of original functions. They would be random, laterally scattered changes that did not coherently build into anything new and significant. Perhaps one or two of those events would include a mutation combined with a previous mutation to give the new ability. That much, Dr Behe has said, is within the limits of naturalistic evolution to reach, but not more.

But to go farther than that, to build complex structures and functions by accumulation of random mutations quickly runs into improbabilities of such staggering magnitude as to be practically impossible no matter how much time is allowed. Your own fun description of "insanely large... humongous... hard-to-write-down" numbers actually applies here.

If you haven't already read it, I recommend to you Dr Behe's latest book, "The Edge of Evolution." In it Dr Behe puts empirical numbers to the vague "fuzzy math" used so often in discussions of evolutionary possibilities.

I apologize for going on at length. I've tried to be concise, but still address the specific topic. Thanks for making the space available in the blog.

D_murphy says: "you thought we might by extrapolation find 50 million new "abilities" if we continued Dr Lenski's experiment for a billion years. Dr Behe perhaps would agree, but I think he would point out that most of those abilities would be due to "single-point" mutations that were actually degradations of original functions."

No, they would not be due to single-point mutations. That calculation was based on it having taken 20 years to produce the new ability to metabolise citrate, which is NOT a single point mutation. The experiment has been running so long that every individual single-point mutation will have happened several times over. This was made explicit in the article:

"By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over. That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special – either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence."

In other words, my calculation was a back-of-the-envelope attempt at working out how many complex, multiple-mutation, new abilities would arise. The rate for abilities that only involve a single, point mutation would be far higher.

From Michael:"No, they would not be due to single-point mutations. That calculation was based on it having taken 20 years to produce the new ability to metabolise citrate, which is NOT a single point mutation."

You're right... My fault for using the wrong term, and causing you to spend so much virtual ink on the distraction. Both Lenski and Behe are explicit about the observed mutation requiring at least two steps.

You are still missing the point, thinking linearly when evidence shows the problem is exponential. Behe's position (supported by evidence in his recent book) is that it becomes increasingly difficult for one random, fortunate mutation to be enhanced (i.e., improved) by additional changes. The difficulty of continued improvement increases exponentially, leading quickly to googleplex probabilities against such events.

That is the point of Dr Behe's professional "criticism." He is not silly, especially not the "first up" of many "kooks", to claim that Dr Lenski's results are in harmony with his (Behe's) own position.

I don't expect to persuade you to Dr Behe's position. I'm hoping you will recognize that you slandered him by associating him with Mr Schlafly and by calling him the first of many "kooks" for daring to express disagreement with Dr Lenski's evaluation of the E.Coli results. He does not deserve that. But expect jeers from the rabble in your own blog's peanut gallery if you admit it.

He is obviously much more educated and sophisticated than Schlafly, but that doesn't stop him being plain wrong. The review of "Darwin's Black Box" that I linked to from the article gives a simple explanation of why, and there is a much more technical discussion of "Edge of Evolution" from Science which tackles the probability issue in a more detailed fashion (the Science review, incidentally, justifies my description of him as a "kook": he ignores a swathe of evidence that discredits his claims).

Together, those two reviews sum up why Behe is wrong more eloquently than I could. :) Pleasure talking to you!

This article is SO wrong. E.coli can metabolize citrate in anaerobic conditions. For some reason, in the presence of oxygen, the transport protein, citrate permease, is repressed and citrate molecules thus aren't able to pass through the cell wall.

Two reasonable and simple random changes could account for the so-called "evolution". Some other transport protein lost some specificity and now transports citrate (along with who knows what else that might kill the cell in vivo) across the cell wall or the regulatory region controlling expression of citrate permease changed so the protein is expressed in the presence of oxygen. Either of these are tiny changes well within the tentative Edge of Evolution that Behe described. The complex structures needed to metabolize citrate were already present. Moreover, Behe found two prior independent observations of an E.coli strain able to metabolize citrate in aerobic conditions.

Some awfully shoddy research went into this article and New Scientist should be ashamed for publishing it.

As I pointed out earlier the claims of Michael Marshall that "creationist critics get their comeuppance" are absurd. On addressing the experiment by Richard Lenski I can make no firm conclusions as the evidence I would need to do so is not present. I would need to know what the change in genetics is and whether the new ability is the result in a change in alleles or the addition of new genes. The change in an allele is rather common while the addition of genes that grant a new function is not at least as far as I know. Of course even knowing this does not prove evolution/creationism/intelligent design but merely enlarges my understanding of the design of living creatures.

It's no different than breeding dogs.In the end it will always be a dog.Whats with the slander.If your right your end result will prove it.Science seems to think slander is their God given right.That in itself make it seem less than credible.Subjective science will continue to have to use slander and enigmas to prove itself.Climb out of your box,it is dark in there.

To Rich: why do you think death is painful? Because in my view, I've seen 2 so far, it's very peaceful and at the point your body fails it's very willed. Yes, we avoid death, but it's simply because it involves loosing our body which is nice and useful and fun. At the point it no longer works, we simply shed it off. But science can in no way see what's after death, so this is a question science would never be able to deal with and it's not trying. (or those that are trying are wasting their time)

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the life after/before. Evolution follows the way organisms change and evolves to get to the point they are now. But it studies only their biological life, their genetics and characteristic, not their death.

Science and evolution on my opinion, as a scientist, never pursued to prove or disprove God or life after death. This was made up by religion fanatics or self-obsessed scientists. Science deal with physical world, stuff that could be measured and understood. Anything else is not-science and has no place in science. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means that it's irrelevant to science and you have to seek your answers with another "tools".